The Bombay High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by Srinwati Mukherji under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, seeking directions for her estranged husband to pay the remaining EMIs towards a jointly booked under-construction flat in Malad West, Mumbai.
The petitioner argued that the flat constituted a “shared household” under Section 2(s) of the DV Act, and invoked Section 19(d) and (e) to restrain her husband from renouncing or alienating the property and to compel him to make the pending payments.
However, Justice Manjusha Deshpande held that since the flat was still under construction and not in possession of either party, it could not be considered a “shared household” within the meaning of the Act. The Court emphasized that the reliefs under Section 19 are intended to protect actual or constructive residence, and not enforce financial commitments for incomplete and unoccupied properties.
Affirming the concurrent findings of the Magistrate and the Sessions Court, the High Court ruled that the petitioner’s claim did not fall within the scope of the DV Act and dismissed the petition.
Appearances in the case:
Mr. Archit Jaykar a/w. Ms.Bhoomi Upadhyay, Advocate for the Petitioner.
Mrs. Dhanlakshmi S. Krishnaiyar, APP for Respondent – State.
Mr. Raghavendra S. Mehrotra a/w. Mr.Irfan Shaikh, Mr.Maddhat Shaikh and Mohini Tekale i/b. M/s.Lawkhart Legal, Advocate and Legal Consultants, Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 4.
